8 responses

  1. Sammy
    16 September 2020

    Hi Tony,

    On the theme of the media misrepresenting facts when covering Arsenal, I would like to point out the following article by Sam Dean of Telegraph.

    It states that “The striker’s new contract is a considerable investment for a club in significant financial trouble”.

    I know that most football clubs have been impacted by the pandemic given the loss of TV income and matches being played behind closed doors, except of course the oil and state whores. However, is Arsenal in “significant financial trouble” more than the others?

    How about the wannabe’s from across the road who are £1bn in debt for constructing a shiny new stadium for no other reason than they wanted a larger and better stadium then Arsenal, and are now stuck without gate receipts or the additional events they are hoping to host?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/09/15/pierre-emerick-aubameyang-important-arsenal-let-go-expensive/

    Reply

    • Tony Attwood
      16 September 2020

      Sammy thanks for that – that is typical of the media to throw in a line like “in debt” and not give any evidence. Do it enough and we have the continual put down.

      Reply

  2. mike in atlanta
    16 September 2020

    quite a thought and not surprising at all. finer analysis may show the three amigos have the lowest accuracy scores: Atkinson, Moss and Dean.

    Reply

  3. nicky
    16 September 2020

    @Sammy,
    It’s all about selling newspapers.
    When reading the news, “in debt” doesn’t hit the eye like “in significant trouble”.

    Reply

  4. Chris
    16 September 2020

    @Sammy,

    the story is behind a paywall. But any idiot can compute the numbers.
    Auba, if he were transfered wouldbe worth at least 50 million euros in fees to the selling club, probably more.
    50 million divided in weeks would give a weekly cost of 320’512 euros.

    So just the transfer fee would add 320’000 and some to he weekly wage bill to give a total cost.

    So if you add that to his actual weekly salary and compare to the talked about figure of his new salary, it is clear Arsenal had a good deal.
    And considering Auba’s impact on the team, no player can come and say : this is unfair, I want a salary raise.

    Any pretending journalist publishing a story saying the opposite has no idea how to use his brains or a calculator, or is spitting out an anti-Arsenal piece. Simple as that.

    The positive side is that Arsenal keep one of the continent’s best strikers, they raised a flag on their mast and signaled they want and can keep their good/important players.

    Them scribblers can try to shine any light on the deal, its basics are what they are.
    And had Arsenal not signed Auba, you can bet your bottom that they would have run riot about it.

    The good thing is they are just left sulking.

    Reply

  5. Mikey
    16 September 2020

    Since it was obviously easier for referees to give a card at the under the influence of or “at the request of” the crowd. The question that remains unanswered is, were these wrong decisions sub-conscious or deliberate.

    Reply

  6. markyb
    17 September 2020

    One decision I was really surprised about was the advantage played for our third goal against fulham. He’ll be marked down for that one.

    Reply

  7. Menace
    17 September 2020

    The advantage was for a cardable foul that wasnt carded. Advantage does not mean the foul is rescinded. It seems to be a PGMOL Arsenal special.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top